See the thing is that big/oil/gas/coal/wood are killing the world. Where I live the fire last year burnt so much wood that the smoke blocked out the sun for a long time and that made everything hotter because the heat got trapped by the smoke, my friend who is a scientist at the school told me that. He is really smart and knows all about wood and how the smoke kills people with extra heat. Yeah those scum bag oil people are killing us, and they do it for money, I heard that they are now watering down petrol to make even more money. Bastards that is why my truck keeps stopping. Now I have to get a new one, but the government won’t help me as they say I need to ask big oil/gas/coal/wood for one. Fat chance of that!! Another thing is on Nuclear power places, like three mile island and that one in Japan that got drowned by the 911 wave. Yes Nuclear power places are really bad news and we should blow them up as they cause cancer and other stuff. My scientist friend told me that all we need are a few hundred more huge windmill things and solar stuff on roofs and then we can save the birds, animals and other stuff too. You see I am now a Green person, I did not used to be but since I saw that film “Greedy Lying Bastards” I have changed, cos now I know that big/oil/gas/coal/wood are killing us for money and because they are very bad people. Places like WUWT are doing a really good job of showing the world how evil is big/oil/gas/coal/wood. I am writing a book on this subject, my friend the scientist (Paul) is going to help me with some of the science stuff cos to tell you the truth, I do find it a bit much. He got all his stuff from a Mr Al Gore. Have you heard of him? Paul says he is the real deal and really knows all about big/oil/gas/coal/wood. Do you know that I am an Aussie? We have an election coming up soon, and we will put Julia Gillard back in for another 4 years. Good one eh mate? She is really smart too, (not as smart as Paul) She has this new tax called a carbon footprint tax you see and I only have to pay 15% of my wages to her and she promises to help save the birds, animals and other stuff too. Cool eh! So if you are voting, vote for her. Ok Mate! PS: I was going to become a journalist; the only job I applied for was with the ABC. But I did not want to work for them as they just do TV stuff for kids. I also wanted to go on Q&A but they never got back to me, hmm I wonder about that sometimes.

What I find incredible and moronic is the change in mind set among scientists, since the invention and development of powerful computers, and the resulting ability to produce complex models. Empirical verification or falsification of any theory was and still is considered essential in science. Over time and with a big boot from Moore’s law the models became so massively complicated that they were mistaken for reality. Remember these models exist on a flat Earth. I kid you not, a flat Earth. This should take a whole new meaning to the Alarmists calling the Realists “Flat Earthers” See they are just flipping again. Flipping is something they learn at consensus meetings.

Note that climate science and the so called :”Save the Planet” or “We are all going to die” is not a computer game, and Empirical evidence is NOT “I saw it on a computer screen so therefore it is observable evidence. As in business, dream spreadsheets are not proof of a proposed businesses success, they are only a tool to extract a loan from a bank and to prove to one ’s self that this is indeed a wonderful idea. The climate model tool has been amazingly successful in extracting billions of dollars from science ignorant governments, gullible people and businesses who think that going Green is a marketable tool.

Computer modelling was just beginning to make its mark in the late 70s in a particular field of solid state physics. Probably half the papers at one conference involved the new method. A remark was made by one young professor. He said that “We must never forget that modelling was rather like masturbation, pleasant but not the real thing.”

I have read that the natural response in seminars on mathematical modelling of almost all modellers to the question “Why should we prefer your model to its competitors?”Is is not to refer to how well its outputs compare with the data. Or rather, is it to say: “Because mine is more sophisticated and faster than yours.”Just like “My daddy is bigger than your daddy, so there stupid”

The IPCC models still use a CO2 residence time of 200 years. But as far as I know this is really between 5 and 10 years, depending on the paper you consult. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Using the correct figure removes any problem that CO2 imposes. But if you are paid to prove the CO2 is a world shaking problem then this would be counterproductive and could lose you your job. CO2 has never driven climate, if you believe the data from observations, as since say 1945 CO2 has continued to rise, but the corresponding temperature is still refusing to go to the same party. For more proof in this simple hypothesis just look at the last 16 year chart. Of course this is not only inconvenient but also counterproductive if you are on this enormous gravy train. So instead the con men/women on the cash band wagon invent things like abnormal weather, as in the headline “Its Global Warming Stupid” in scaremongering fashion in regards to non Cyclone Sandy. Really now, the headline should have been: “It’s Weather Stupid”

From a blogger: “The IPCC in playing fast and loose with Forster and Gregory undermining fatally its own story, in which high climate sensitivity is the foundation for all else. No need to delve into that vocal minority that say that there are other childish mistakes. The IPCC has sawed off the branch it was resting on so it matters much less whether other factors would have meant that the branch would have broken anyway, before long. “See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1

Now there are furious arguments to what constitutes climate sensitivity . I will go along with Matt Ridley explanation on that one. Not all of the estimates of climate sensitivity are equal. Most of the studies published in the IPCC bible were either entirely based on climate model output or relied upon it to some extent. In fact to my knowledge there was only one exception: the paper by Forster and Gregory, which is the only wholly empirical study published. If there is another one please correct me.

Empirical measurement is suggesting a low climate sensitivity with the most likely value at around 1.5°C. Higher values are driven by the modelling studies. Moreover, we can see that large ranges of values of climate sensitivity as implied by the empirical measurements of Forster and Gregory. Note: These are not covered by the PAGE model (PAGE economic model, which underpinned Stern’s work.) at all.

The IPCC’s suggestion, that climate sensitivity is most likely to be in the range 2.0 to 4.5°C , is shown to be barely supportable and then only by favouring computer simulations of the climate over empirical measurements. Yes confusion reigns, but is that not part of the plan? If it had not been for the internet, the Alarmists plan would in a large part already been implemented. If that would have happened we now would all be living in FUBAR land.

So in regards to climate sensitivity and the Alarmist screaming’s of massive positive feedback. It seems to me to throw lesson one of the scientific method out of the classroom window. And I really do mean lesson one: “ In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” Richard Feynman

So an examination suggests that the values of climate sensitivity used in the PAGE model are highly debatable. But of course it’s actually even worse than that (it usually is). Close followers of the climate debate will recall Nic Lewis’s guest post at Prof Curry’s blog last year, in which he noted that the “Forster and Gregory” values in the IPCC graph were not the values that were implicit in Forster and Gregory’s published results – the IPCC had notoriously chosen to restate the findings in a way that gave a radically higher estimate of climate sensitivity. See: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

Love this: “The IPCC took eight studies on climate sensitivity of which one (Forster/Gregory 06) was the only study based purely on observational evidence, with no dependence on any climate model simulations threw said study in their voodoo math machines and basically came up with 2 x the result. It then put the study up in the graph with the other studies and basically pulled the “Mikes nature trick/hide the decline” game.”

On another study: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL023977.shtml “Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings.” Nicholas Lewis has been trying for over a year and a half, without success, to try and obtain from Dr Forest the data used in Forest 2006. However, he has been able to obtain without any difficulty the data used in two related studies that were stated to be based on the Forest 2006 data. It appears that Dr Forest only provided pre-processed data for use in those studies, which is understandable as the raw model dataset is very large. Unfortunately, Dr Forest reports that the raw model data is now lost. Yes LOST, the dog ate my data! Worse, the sets of pre-processed model data that he provided for use in the two related studies, while both apparently deriving from the same set of model simulation runs, were very different. Talking of dogs, seems my vet keeps better a record of my dog’s health that Dr Forrest can.

The global warming scare has fizzled like a wet fire cracker. The sun has entered a new quiet phase, and average global temperatures have been stable for 16 years. Wasteful and ridiculous Climate conferences in Doha and elsewhere have achieved nothing except hot air and Green bollocks. Kyoto has become a sick joke and is now a footnote at the bottom of the page in history. Countries that agreed to climate stabilization policies have failed miserably and now are retreating from that untenable position. The general public has really had enough of the scaremongering and have more important things in their lives. In short most people just laugh as CACW is now just a very expensive bad joke.

Splattergate: Watermelons of the IPCC, who do they think are? So they have to go for my kids, with their BS propaganda, yeah really? Well they show this sort of stuff to my kids I will rip the teachers arm off. I am sick,sick and soooo tired of the CAGW lies. And this is where my tax money is going.

I have reached the point, after arguing (Debating) since 2006 with CAGW supporters who called me every name under the sun; that I do not care the reason why people think this a scam, as long as they do. They even tried to brainwash my young children with their propaganda. At last the wheel has turned. But they have wasted almost 1 trillion dollars of your money on this scam. Think of the clean water and cheap electricity that the poorer nations could have had with this money. God I despise them so much. After this is all said and done, the criminals who instigated this should be taken to trial and jailed for life.

Ice melts when its warm, and when its cold; water turns to ice. It is called the weather. The climate is always changing, always has and always will. Tell me why do you think the name was changed for Global Warming to Climate Change? My kids asked that at school, the teacher told them that it was done so they would not be scared. Scared? Google splattergate. That is what I call scared. That it if you cannot convince the parents, brainwash the children.

When told that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes increased temperature, because of the green house effect, most lay persons presume that the relationship is linear i.e.; that the temperature increases in steady and equal increments as CO2 is added. But greenhouse gases are not like that; instead as extra gas is added to the atmosphere, incremental temperature occur in a declining logarithmic fashion. A good analogy is painting the windows of a room with white paint: The first coat or two of paint block out much of the light and cause a marked darkening of the room, but by the time the tenth coat and more are added, little additional darkening is observed. Similarly, the first 60 ppm of CO2 added to the newly forming Earth atmosphere is modelled as causing 2 Deg C of warming, whereas adding another 60 ppm from say, 300-360 ppm causes less than one-tenth of a degree of additional warming.

It must be difficult to lose face. Loosing face is a big thing in Asia, I should know I have an Asian wife. I suspect that it is the same all over the world. But some people as above have no face to lose. Maybe saving face is one of the reasons for the religious fever attached to people who believe that CAGW is the new holy gospel. Who knows? I have never managed to understand fanaticism and properly never will.

DDT was one of the stars of World War II, used in wiping out malaria, typhus and other insect-delivered diseases on the battlefield and in nearby cities. DDT was first synthesized in 1874, but in 1939 Paul Muller of Geigy Pharmaceutical (the predecessor to Novartis) discovered the chemical’s insecticidal behavior: it killed all the bugs it was tested on. For this, Muller won the 1948 Nobel Prize in medicine.

The lie spread by the guilty greens is that DDT has never been banned against malaria, but of course this is silly as what about and other insect-borne tropical diseases in Africa, South America and other parts of the World? One would have to prove that it was being used against malaria, Proof? How? Doubt? “Forget it we will not let you have it!” You see the key word here is “manufacture” and the other is “control”. You cannot get something if it is not being made or you cannot have it. And if you do manage to get it by a roundabout route we will cancel all aid to you. Get it?

The WHO estimates that Malathion, the cheapest alternative to DDT, costs more than twice as much as DDT and must be sprayed twice as often. Another mosquito-fighting chemical, deltamethrin, is over three times as expensive as DDT, and propoxur, although also highly effective, costs 23 times as much.

Currently, DDT is made only in India and China, with the New Delhi-based Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (HIL), which is considered the largest producer in the world with an estimated 1,344 tonnes/year of DDT capacity, US capacity in 1962 was 85,000 tonnes PA with the population increase that would equate to at least double that today; so let us say to achieve what we were achieving in 1962 that we wish to achieve today we would require at least 170,000 to 250,000 tonnes PA= 126 times (at min) the amount that HIL can produce , so some very large factories need to be built. With the renewed interest towards DDT as a tool to fight malaria, the company has ventured into exporting DDT primarily to African nations. WHO says that indoor spraying of DDT can reduce malaria transmission by up to 90%. The WHO’s regional director for Africa, Dr Luis Gomes Sambo, says: “The WHO position on indoor-residual spraying is that countries have the right to choose the products to use “DDT being one of them,” if there are no other alternatives possible “Read cost verses aid”. The WHO like to just talk about malaria, but are well aware of the other beneficial uses of DDT but for political reasons choose to remain quite on the subject.

Edward Goldsmith : 1972 a book was written by him and 4 others called a “Blue Print for Survival” I remember it well as it was on the shelf in may father library. This book was about the end of the world. In the opening pages 38 of Britain’s most honored scientists, environmentalists endorsed the work including 2 Nobel laureates, 7 fellows of the Royal Society and 18 professors. In this book Armageddon was forecast before the year 2000; by which time all hydrocarbon fuel would be exhausted and all gold, zinc, platinum, lead, nickel, copper, mercury, molybdenum, and silver would be too be all gone! The publisher who wrote the forward for that book said that this book will prove in the years to come to have a marked a turning point which will affect the course of our civilization. This same publisher is none other than Tom Stacey who has done a complete and utter turn around in his thinking including I might add AGW. The cause of the Goldsmith Armageddon? “Over Population” sorry not Global Warming. Remember too in Goldsmiths opinion that all of the oil, coal and gas was used up. That I put to you dear reader, is a s—t load of CO2 (you do the math) In the 1970s it was well know theory that C02 could cause global warming but no one had the will to push that point at that time. Over population was the big paper selling product in the 1970. My dad and I were totality fooled by this book. In hindsight Goldsmith got the demographics and the science very badly WRONG. So all those learned men were made to look ridiculous. In 40 years from now we (Well not me as I will be dead) and more learned men will look ridiculous as well ( Some already are). Goldsmith is long dead, but his sprit in alive and well in Greenpeace. I note that Rajendra Pachaur is a good friend of Greenpeace; that I call a conflict of interest if there ever was one. Sack Pachaur.